Thailand Blacklisted From Receiving New AIDS Drugs

[Plus]

I don't know, for one thing it was specifically about Pfizer Global Manufacturing, the rest of the company is a lot bigger and "employs 122,000 people in 60 countries".

I have no idea if drugs manufactured in those countries are sold in the US or UK. I have no idea if HIV drugs for Asian market are indeed manufactured in India. They could be. I supposed that's the whole idea behind "Global Manufacturing".

[Prakanong]

I don't know, for one thing it was specifically about Pfizer Global Manufacturing, the rest of the company is a lot bigger and "employs 122,000 people in 60 countries".

I have no idea if drugs manufactured in those countries are sold in the US or UK. I have no idea if HIV drugs for Asian market are indeed manufactured in India. They could be. I supposed that's the whole idea behind "Global Manufacturing".

I agree about global manufacturing but I really do not think there is that much in India but i could be wrong with regards to Pfizer and others.

I have been on the Sandwich site and its bloody big and has been expanding the last 7 years I know of

We manufacture in Singapore, are expanding here and are looking at sites in APAC which include India.

Johnpa has read one book and he thinks big Pharma are only marketing companies which is basically <deleted> ;-))))

He then extrapolates the argument to say they do not manufacture their own products which if Pfizer have 32000 direct employs in manufacture and we are pretty big too would leave a lot of people not doing much!

[jdinasia]

I don't know, for one thing it was specifically about Pfizer Global Manufacturing, the rest of the company is a lot bigger and "employs 122,000 people in 60 countries".

I have no idea if drugs manufactured in those countries are sold in the US or UK. I have no idea if HIV drugs for Asian market are indeed manufactured in India. They could be. I supposed that's the whole idea behind "Global Manufacturing".

I agree about global manufacturing but I really do not think there is that much in India but i could be wrong with regards to Pfizer and others.

I have been on the Sandwich site and its bloody big and has been expanding the last 7 years I know of

We manufacture in Singapore, are expanding here and are looking at sites in APAC which include India.

Johnpa has read one book and he thinks big Pharma are only marketing companies which is basically <deleted> ;-))))

He then extrapolates the argument to say they do not manufacture their own products which if Pfizer have 32000 direct employs in manufacture and we are pretty big too would leave a lot of people not doing much!

I think he means ... the big boys don't pay to do the R&D ... yes they do manufacture ... they just don't do that much breakthrough work on their own

[Plus]

Let's just wait for Johnpa himself to respond.

Apparently Big Pharma are engaged in the whole cycle - R&D, trials, manufacturing, marketing and so on.

The argument is that their own investment in R&D is limited to commercial applications while their R&D in "fundamental" science is sponsored by governments. Tthe rate of return from investment in drugs like Norvir and Abbot's new line of "climate" Kaletra applications is vastly different, and without Norvir there wouldn't be Kaletra in the first place.

The argument is that Abbot doesn't have strong moral grounds to complain about "unfairness" and "stolen" patents considering that Thailand was within its legal rights. Thailand looks a bit like Robin Hood here.

>>>>>

Getting patent on Norvir was a sweet deal for Abbot. Perhaps if global patenting system is overhauled, publicly sponsored drugs shouldn't fall completely in the hands of companies that were outsourced to do the job. I don't know what was Abbot's share in Norvir's development, maybe if it was less than 30%, the patent should be made public.

[Prakanong]

I don't know, for one thing it was specifically about Pfizer Global Manufacturing, the rest of the company is a lot bigger and "employs 122,000 people in 60 countries".

I have no idea if drugs manufactured in those countries are sold in the US or UK. I have no idea if HIV drugs for Asian market are indeed manufactured in India. They could be. I supposed that's the whole idea behind "Global Manufacturing".

I agree about global manufacturing but I really do not think there is that much in India but i could be wrong with regards to Pfizer and others.

I have been on the Sandwich site and its bloody big and has been expanding the last 7 years I know of

We manufacture in Singapore, are expanding here and are looking at sites in APAC which include India.

Johnpa has read one book and he thinks big Pharma are only marketing companies which is basically <deleted> ;-))))

He then extrapolates the argument to say they do not manufacture their own products which if Pfizer have 32000 direct employs in manufacture and we are pretty big too would leave a lot of people not doing much!

I think he means ... the big boys don't pay to do the R&D ... yes they do manufacture ... they just don't do that much breakthrough work on their own

I know exactly where his argument comes from - the Marcia Angell book

Even that biased book acknowledges the "D" part of the equation - yes many drugs are discovered in public lab's and small companies but it is impossible for them to get them to market at Clinical Trials cost so much - they then have to partner or licence the drugs

It is not true however that the big boys do not do any primary research of their own or fund it - just look at the money going into Singapores Biopolis from the big boys for primary research - this is being repeated elsewhere around the globe and R&D centres are being opened away from the traditional Northern Europe and the USA centres - following both the money and the talent.

The division I work in has partner institutions but its mostly primary research by the company - a lot of the partner products are for the the types of disease where there is no money (or not much) to be made but CSR enters into it.

[Prakanong]

Let's just wait for Johnpa himself to respond.

Apparently Big Pharma are engaged in the whole cycle - R&D, trials, manufacturing, marketing and so on.

The argument is that their own investment in R&D is limited to commercial applications while their R&D in "fundamental" science is sponsored by governments. Tthe rate of return from investment in drugs like Norvir and Abbot's new line of "climate" Kaletra applications is vastly different, and without Norvir there wouldn't be Kaletra in the first place.

The argument is that Abbot doesn't have strong moral grounds to complain about "unfairness" and "stolen" patents considering that Thailand was within its legal rights. Thailand looks a bit like Robin Hood here.

>>>>>

Getting patent on Norvir was a sweet deal for Abbot. Perhaps if global patenting system is overhauled, publicly sponsored drugs shouldn't fall completely in the hands of companies that were outsourced to do the job. I don't know what was Abbot's share in Norvir's development, maybe if it was less than 30%, the patent should be made public.

I do actually agree with you in the case of Abbot and the above drug.

As Salk said when he discovered the Polio vaccine and was asked if he was going to patent it and he replied, "It would be like patenting sunshine"

There is the other side of the coin though when it can still get cost hundreds of millions of USd to get a drug from discovery to market with a very high failure rate (90%) do not make it through phase 3 - a company has to recoup its money somehow or it would not be in business long.

I do not see any public bodies trialling drugs around the world in all markets they need to be trialled - it may be possible in some advanced markets but if the trials are not done in many countries they will not licence so again patients could lose out.

[Plus]

I've read recently that vast majority of big pharma's own investment goes into "life-style" drugs, not life saving medicines.

R&D done by small companies that need big pharma for trials and marketing is a separate story.

[Prakanong]

Lifestyle drugs?

Do you mean western chronic conditions such as asthma, diabetes, hypertension, depression, anxiety?

I do know we have 2 "Blockbusters" (hope they are) coming out or are out this year and both are lifesavers in a big way - therapeutic and prophylactic.

There is also great hope for therapeutic vaccines for cancer plus more prophylactic vaccines for diseases such as Dengue and Malaria in the medium term.

[Plus]

No, I meant drugs for baldness and wrinkles and obesity and erectile disfuction, I also meant "me too" drugs.

It's nearly impossible to pin exact number on pharma investments. They claim they invest on average 800 mil to develop new drugs. Opponents say that they also spend 500 mil to market each of those drugs (the most successful ones).

Doctors Without Frontiers say that less than 1% of all drugs are developed for treating disesses that account for 12% of all illnesses while others say that two thirds of all FDA approved drugs are in "mee too" class. Malarial drugs (500 million people are affected each year) are not even meant to treat the disease, they are meant for tourists visiting tropical areas.

Mind you, I don't trust any of these numbers at all, but that's the perception. It's an open season on Big Pharma.

[Prakanong]

No, I meant drugs for baldness and wrinkles and obesity and erectile disfuction, I also meant "me too" drugs.

It's nearly impossible to pin exact number on pharma investments. They claim they invest on average 800 mil to develop new drugs. Opponents say that they also spend 500 mil to market each of those drugs (the most successful ones).

Doctors Without Frontiers say that less than 1% of all drugs are developed for treating disesses that account for 12% of all illnesses while others say that two thirds of all FDA approved drugs are in "mee too" class. Malarial drugs (500 million people are affected each year) are not even meant to treat the disease, they are meant for tourists visiting tropical areas.

Mind you, I don't trust any of these numbers at all, but that's the perception. It's an open season on Big Pharma.

You just had me read through our entire pipeline and i can find nothing for baldness ;-)))

To be honest though I do not know if i would even take a "Magic pill" for it at this stage - maybe but still shave my head!

Costs of getting drugs to market - I know about clinical trial costs and what they cost in different locales - hence the migration of many trials to cheaper countries (just like manufacturing etc) but with the same quality standarsds (ICH-GCP) as well as concentration on lifecycle improvements.

As for MSF and the amount spent on drugs for the develping world that may be so but in the end pharma is a business - there are developments going on in vaccines for drug resistant TB and malaria both of which I have worked on - these will be sold very cheaply to org's like MSF, Bill and miranda Gates, WHO, UNICEF etc at cost I would wager - it does help CSR if one were to be cynical.

As for open season on Pharma - I see and hear it more from the USA than anywhere else. Possibly with good reason but the whole healthcare system there is creaking and the fault does not lie at only pharma's door - its a multi-causal issue but of course big pharma are easy targets. The same guys slagging it off are the same guys who argue for the free market and love Fox TV ;-)))

There willalways be groups like MSF who think all drugs (and all other products) should be free but it is their own philosophy - i have a colleague who works in big pharma whose wife is a Dr with MSF and have had some interesting conversations.

Maybe the UK/Euro model is better where Govt org's negotiate drug prices - dunno

[aqua4]

The argument is that Abbot doesn't have strong moral grounds to complain about "unfairness" and "stolen" patents considering that Thailand was within its legal rights. Thailand looks a bit like Robin Hood here.

Theft is theft irrespective of the intention. Thailand was clearly outside of their legal rights.

Some people can't see the bear from the woods when they argue emotionally.

[Plus]

Thailand was clearly outside of their legal rights.

Says who?

Compulsory licensing is not illegal. I can give you quotes where qualified people say that Thailand was within its rights.

Perhaps the best argument is that Abbot is not suing Thailand, that would have been their best option. Instead they are reduced to morally hazardous choice of withdrawing drugs from the country, as if they don't have enough PR problems as it is.

Prakanong, I didn't make up those stats (someone else did). Google "big pharma" and you get thousands and thousands of anti pharma rants with all sorts of numbers thrown in.

Maybe the numbers are false (most probably they are), but the perception is clearly not in pharma's favour. I don't think it's limited to the US, I'm pretty sure that developing world has even more unpalatable things to say.

[Johpa]

Johnpa has read one book and he thinks big Pharma are only marketing companies which is basically <deleted> ;-))))

He then extrapolates the argument to say they do not manufacture their own products which if Pfizer have 32000 direct employs in manufacture and we are pretty big too would leave a lot of people not doing much!

First, I have read many books, I am an avid reader, and read about one book a week.

The one book I specifically referred to in this thread was Marcia Angell's The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It has been read by many and quoted by many as well. Perhaps you might care to see this particular book footnoted in another of my current favorite author's books, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz's Making Globalization Work .

Here is a link to a synapsis written by the author: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

Here is her current professional CV at the Harvard Medical School.

And what I said, which is what Anglell argues, was that the big pharma companies are primarily marketing companies, that a majority of their resources, and finances, goes into marketing. The research that they do in-house tends to be aimed at creating slightly altered chemical structures of existing drugs in order to market a new patentable version of drugs about to go off patent (whether the drug works better is not important and is not forced to be tested against existing drugs by the FDA) as well as research aimed at me-too drugs, drugs such as erectile dysfunction drugs ( a lifestyle drug) and cholesterol lowering drugs.

Or perhaps you are correct and this mindless poster, Dr. Angell, and the Nobel laureate are all full of <deleted>.

[slimdog]

Theft is theft irrespective of the intention. Thailand was clearly outside of their legal rights.

Some people can't see the bear from the woods when they argue emotionally.

What Thailand has done is totally legal, it has exercised it's right to obtain a compulsory licence agreement as specified by the World Trade Organisation in Cancun in 2003 and also the WTO Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement.

Whilst there has been a lot mentioned about Thailand manufacturing Kaletra, the fact is that this would be prohibitly expensive, as the data needed to licence the original drug in Thailand didn't have to be provided by the Drug manufacturer, as they have a 5 year data exclusion (Part of Cancun agreement). Therefore for Thailand to get a licence from the Thai FDA, they would first have to carry out a comprehensive Trial program, which would be both costly and time consuming.

So why issue the Compulsory licence?

One of the main reasons for the issuing the licence was to give Thailand the legal right to import a generic version of the drug, which is manufactured in India, which while still relatively expensive, is considerably cheaper than the version sold by Abbott. The other reason was to apply some pressure on Abbotts to lower the cost of the drug.

Having the compusory licence issued, in no way stops Abbotts from selling or marketing their original Kaletra medication in Thailand, and even if they reduced their price, this would only apply to sales to the government, and could only be issued by Government hospitals. Private hospitals and their patients would still have to pay the price Abbotts considered the "Correct" price. Many people through out the world, even in Thailand are more confident in Original medicines than generic versions. So Abbotts would still have a market with the middle class sufferers, which has always been their core market.

To give you some indication of the different prices Abbotts sells Kaletra at:

USA: $8000 per year

Canada $4000 per year

Europe $4000 per year (approx, depending on which country)

S Africa $2000 per year

Africa $ 500 per year (excluding South Africa)

The proposed price Abbotts has suggested is $2200 per year, the generic version, imported from India would be priced around $1800 - $2000 per year per patient. Remember on top of this, 2 additional medications are required, such as tenofovir and stavudine which even with generics would still cost around an addition $800 per person per year.

[nick2k]

The argument is that Abbot doesn't have strong moral grounds to complain about "unfairness" and "stolen" patents considering that Thailand was within its legal rights. Thailand looks a bit like Robin Hood here.

Theft is theft irrespective of the intention. Thailand was clearly outside of their legal rights.

Some people can't see the bear from the woods when they argue emotionally.

I agree with you. thailand is stealing.

but I really don't want to debate the issue with the opposition since I encourage their argument for thailand stealing the drugs. ..the sooner the big corporations know that they are being abused, the sooner they will return to the west.

recently, we hear of intel and ibm bringing over more of their western technology. stupid idea in my opinion. but then, I guess they need to learn a lesson which will be forthcoming. ..when china uses the chip technology to improve their military infrastructure, that should raise some concern in the usa. ..only a matter of time before they see the light.

back to the situation in thailand... these guys who advocate thailand stealing the drugs. well, when the big pharma invent another new drug, I KNOW WHAT THEY WILL SAY - they will say it is their right to steal that drug too. ..it is their moral right.

I wouldn't blame the big pharma companies if they decided not to provide the new drugs here.

someday, all the american companies will return to america providing jobs to americans. this is where they should be.

[Prakanong]

Johnpa has read one book and he thinks big Pharma are only marketing companies which is basically <deleted> ;-))))

He then extrapolates the argument to say they do not manufacture their own products which if Pfizer have 32000 direct employs in manufacture and we are pretty big too would leave a lot of people not doing much!

First, I have read many books, I am an avid reader, and read about one book a week.

The one book I specifically referred to in this thread was Marcia Angell's The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It has been read by many and quoted by many as well. Perhaps you might care to see this particular book footnoted in another of my current favorite author's books, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz's Making Globalization Work .

Here is a link to a synapsis written by the author: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

Here is her current professional CV at the Harvard Medical School.

And what I said, which is what Anglell argues, was that the big pharma companies are primarily marketing companies, that a majority of their resources, and finances, goes into marketing. The research that they do in-house tends to be aimed at creating slightly altered chemical structures of existing drugs in order to market a new patentable version of drugs about to go off patent (whether the drug works better is not important and is not forced to be tested against existing drugs by the FDA) as well as research aimed at me-too drugs, drugs such as erectile dysfunction drugs ( a lifestyle drug) and cholesterol lowering drugs.

Or perhaps you are correct and this mindless poster, Dr. Angell, and the Nobel laureate are all full of <deleted>.

you do not have to quote me the one book you have read - I can see you do not take it in as I quoted you the book you take your biased picture from.

Its rather like one reading for a degree and using only one text book - utterly ridiculous but if thats what you want

[Prakanong]

The argument is that Abbot doesn't have strong moral grounds to complain about "unfairness" and "stolen" patents considering that Thailand was within its legal rights. Thailand looks a bit like Robin Hood here.

Theft is theft irrespective of the intention. Thailand was clearly outside of their legal rights.

Some people can't see the bear from the woods when they argue emotionally.

I agree with you. thailand is stealing.

but I really don't want to debate the issue with the opposition since I encourage their argument for thailand stealing the drugs. ..the sooner the big corporations know that they are being abused, the sooner they will return to the west.

recently, we hear of intel and ibm bringing over more of their western technology. stupid idea in my opinion. but then, I guess they need to learn a lesson which will be forthcoming. ..when china uses the chip technology to improve their military infrastructure, that should raise some concern in the usa. ..only a matter of time before they see the light.

back to the situation in thailand... these guys who advocate thailand stealing the drugs. well, when the big pharma invent another new drug, I KNOW WHAT THEY WILL SAY - they will say it is their right to steal that drug too. ..it is their moral right.

I wouldn't blame the big pharma companies if they decided not to provide the new drugs here.

someday, all the american companies will return to america providing jobs to americans. this is where they should be.

You isolationist stance is quite amusing.

Its a global world now and America can not stand alone - you do not have a monolpoly on brains and innovation - I hope u live long enough to see the rise and relative decline of the US - it will still be the largest economy in 2050 though - its a toss up who will be 2nd - China or Insia

I suppoe there were voices in the wilderness like you from 1870-1914 when the UK lost their lead

[gummy]

The argument is that Abbot doesn't have strong moral grounds to complain about "unfairness" and "stolen" patents considering that Thailand was within its legal rights. Thailand looks a bit like Robin Hood here.

Theft is theft irrespective of the intention. Thailand was clearly outside of their legal rights.

Some people can't see the bear from the woods when they argue emotionally.

I agree with you. thailand is stealing.

but I really don't want to debate the issue with the opposition since I encourage their argument for thailand stealing the drugs. ..the sooner the big corporations know that they are being abused, the sooner they will return to the west.

recently, we hear of intel and ibm bringing over more of their western technology. stupid idea in my opinion. but then, I guess they need to learn a lesson which will be forthcoming. ..when china uses the chip technology to improve their military infrastructure, that should raise some concern in the usa. ..only a matter of time before they see the light.

back to the situation in thailand... these guys who advocate thailand stealing the drugs. well, when the big pharma invent another new drug, I KNOW WHAT THEY WILL SAY - they will say it is their right to steal that drug too. ..it is their moral right.

I wouldn't blame the big pharma companies if they decided not to provide the new drugs here.

someday, all the american companies will return to america providing jobs to americans. this is where they should be.

You isolationist stance is quite amusing.

Its a global world now and America can not stand alone - you do not have a monolpoly on brains and innovation - I hope u live long enough to see the rise and relative decline of the US - it will still be the largest economy in 2050 though - its a toss up who will be 2nd - China or Insia

I suppoe there were voices in the wilderness like you from 1870-1914 when the UK lost their lead

I believe the most current economic projections are that by 2018 China will have overtaken the USA and shortly after in 2024 India will take 2nd place. Certainly will be interesting to see how US adapt to being an "also ran". Mind you there are still folk in the UK who are still in self denial about the British Empire's demise.

[Prakanong]

" believe the most current economic projections are that by 2018 China will have overtaken the USA and shortly after in 2024 India will take 2nd place. Certainly will be interesting to see how US adapt to being an "also ran". Mind you there are still folk in the UK who are still in self denial about the British Empire's demise. "

Your reading is different to mine but I agree about the little Englander syndrome even if I am Engrish ;-))

I was in Bangalore last week and my eyes were opened!

Shitty infrastructure but a excellent work ethic and thirst for improvement I think we have lost in the west.

[Johpa]

Johnpa has read one book and he thinks big Pharma are only marketing companies which is basically <deleted> ;-))))

He then extrapolates the argument to say they do not manufacture their own products which if Pfizer have 32000 direct employs in manufacture and we are pretty big too would leave a lot of people not doing much!

First, I have read many books, I am an avid reader, and read about one book a week.

The one book I specifically referred to in this thread was Marcia Angell's The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It has been read by many and quoted by many as well. Perhaps you might care to see this particular book footnoted in another of my current favorite author's books, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz's Making Globalization Work .

Here is a link to a synapsis written by the author: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

Here is her current professional CV at the Harvard Medical School.

And what I said, which is what Anglell argues, was that the big pharma companies are primarily marketing companies, that a majority of their resources, and finances, goes into marketing. The research that they do in-house tends to be aimed at creating slightly altered chemical structures of existing drugs in order to market a new patentable version of drugs about to go off patent (whether the drug works better is not important and is not forced to be tested against existing drugs by the FDA) as well as research aimed at me-too drugs, drugs such as erectile dysfunction drugs ( a lifestyle drug) and cholesterol lowering drugs.

Or perhaps you are correct and this mindless poster, Dr. Angell, and the Nobel laureate are all full of <deleted>.

you do not have to quote me the one book you have read - I can see you do not take it in as I quoted you the book you take your biased picture from.

Its rather like one reading for a degree and using only one text book - utterly ridiculous but if thats what you want

I rest my case.

[Prakanong]

Your case is rather flawed - I am sure you read more than one source while getting your degree!

Anyway - I am happy in big pharma - bloody big bonus this year that went towards my new Patek Philippe ;-)

Keep taking the pills!

[Plus]

And that's exactly why people are unhappy with big pharma - you (they) don't want people to lead happy and healthy lives, they are against healthy people as a prinicple.

There are rumors of some anti-virus software companies writing viruses themselves so that they can sell their security programs to people they infected.

No one is accusing big pharma of those practices yet, but I won't be surprised that they leave some backdoors in their medicines on purpose so that they can sell new drugs that would cure side-effects of the previous ones.

The whole setup where people make money out of others suffering is fundamentally flawed.

[Johpa]

Your case is rather flawed - I am sure you read more than one source while getting your degree!

Anyway - I am happy in big pharma - bloody big bonus this year that went towards my new Patek Philippe ;-)

Keep taking the pills!

I usually refrain from making overt ad hominem attacks on these boards (and the only pills I take are generic naproxen) but you are a very little man indeed. So best to scurry on over to the congregating place of similar small-minded people who would be impressed with your new watch, an object I don't even bother to own.

But really, I am happy for you that you have found happiness in your work.

[Pepe']

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[gummy]

Follow the attached link "hot of the press". Especially the statement following the 5th paragraph.

This is from GSK Europes largest drug company. Abbott and other US companies take note.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6508985.stm

Edited March 30, 2007 by gummy

[Pepe']

Follow the attached link "hot of the press". Especially the statement following the 5th paragraph.

This is from GSK Europes largest drug company. Abbott and other US companies take note.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6508985.stm

----------------

Now that 5th paragraph really woke me up

[Mid]

Follow the attached link "hot of the press". Especially the statement following the 5th paragraph.

This is from GSK Europes largest drug company. Abbott and other US companies take note.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6508985.stm

at long last ..............................

[Pepe']

Follow the attached link "hot of the press". Especially the statement following the 5th paragraph.

This is from GSK Europes largest drug company. Abbott and other US companies take note.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6508985.stm

at long last ..............................

------------------------

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Prakanong]

And that's exactly why people are unhappy with big pharma - you (they) don't want people to lead happy and healthy lives, they are against healthy people as a prinicple.

There are rumors of some anti-virus software companies writing viruses themselves so that they can sell their security programs to people they infected.

No one is accusing big pharma of those practices yet, but I won't be surprised that they leave some backdoors in their medicines on purpose so that they can sell new drugs that would cure side-effects of the previous ones.

The whole setup where people make money out of others suffering is fundamentally flawed.

That is stretching things a bit - I do appreciate some of your posts on many topics but conspiracy's just do not happen on a large scale.

Public ownership of the drug producing system would produce naff all - and this is me saying this as a ex-far lefty

[Prakanong]

Follow the attached link "hot of the press". Especially the statement following the 5th paragraph.

This is from GSK Europes largest drug company. Abbott and other US companies take note.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6508985.stm

----------------

Now that 5th paragraph really woke me up

If you had an intellect which was capable of that I would be impressed ;-)